coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
9.  On 23 September 1992 the applicants lodged an action with the Michalovce District Court. They claimed compensation, under the Extra-Judicial Rehabilitations Act, for both real and movable property which had been taken away from their late father.
10.  On 20 January 1993 the District Court submitted the action to the defendant authority for comments. On 6 April 1993 the defendant authority submitted its observations in reply.
11.  On 28 April 1993 the District Court adjourned the case and requested the applicants to specify the legal provisions on which their claim was based and to submit further documentary evidence. On 24 May 1993 the applicants submitted further documents. They specified the provisions of the Extra-Judicial Rehabilitations Act on which their action was based on 3 September 1993.
12.  On 16 September 1993 the District Court heard the applicants.
13.  On 5 October 1993 the judge inspected the real property in question in the presence of the parties. The judge also heard a witness.
14.  On 8 November 1993 the applicants withdrew their claim concerning compensation for movable property. On 15 December 1993 the District Court discontinued the proceedings in respect of that claim. This decision became final on 11 February 1994.
15.  On 14 April 1994 the court heard two witnesses.
16.  On 27 April 1994 the judge visited the real property in question and heard two witnesses and an expert.
17.  On 11 May 1994 the applicants proposed that the court hear three witnesses. In September 1994 they requested the court not to proceed with the case between 20 October and 1 November 1994 due to the absence of their lawyer.
18.  On 7 March 1995 the District Court heard three witnesses and invited the parties to explore the possibility of settling the case. On 18 May 1995 the applicants informed the judge that they were not opposed to her intention to order an expert opinion with a view to evaluating the property should the attempt to settle the case fail. On 29 June 1995 the defendant ministry refused to accept the applicants’ claims.
19.  On 11 October 1995 the Michalovce District Court dismissed the action. The judgment was served on the parties on 1 and 4 December 1995 respectively.
20.  On 15 December 1995 the applicants appealed. The defendant authority submitted its observations in reply on 29 January 1996, and on 20 February 1996 the case file was submitted to the appellate court.
21.  On 6 March 1996 the applicants submitted further arguments to the appellate court.
22.  On 7 October 1997 the Košice Regional Court upheld the first instance judgment.
23.  On 7 January 1998 the applicants lodged an appeal on points of law. They challenged the lower courts’ conclusions and complained that the Regional Court had not appointed an expert with a view to establishing the value of the property.
24.  On 21 April 1998 the Supreme Court rejected the appeal on points of law. It found that the refusal to order an expert opinion was not a relevant reason for quashing the second instance judgment and held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the appellate court’s finding on the merits.
7.  The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Florence, which she had let to A.L. and F.U..
8.  In a writ served on the tenants on 23 December 1986, the applicant informed them that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1987 and summoned them to appear before the Florence Magistrate.
9.  By a decision of 27 January 1987, which was made enforceable on 2 February 1987, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1988.
10.  On 8 June 1989, the applicant served notice on the tenants requiring them to vacate the premises.
11.  On 8 July 1989, she served notice on the tenants informing them that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 7 August 1989.
12.  Between 7 August 1989 and 18 February 1999, the bailiff made twenty-two attempts to recover possession.
13.  Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
14.  Pursuant to Law no. 431/98, the enforcement proceedings were suspended until 6 September 1999.
15.  On 6 July 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the apartment.
10.  The applicants were born in 1936 and 1937, respectively, and live in Tata, Hungary.
11.  In May 1987 the Tatabánya District Court granted a request by Mrs. O., the applicants' neighbour, that they be ordered to tolerate a sewer, which emanated from her property, crossing part of their garden.
12.  In 1988 the applicants brought an action in trespass against Mrs. O., claiming that, when installing the sewer, she exceeded the scope of the rights granted to her in 1987.
13.  In July 1990 the Komárom-Esztergom County Regional Court quashed the District Court's dismissal of the action and remitted the case. In the resumed proceedings, in February 1991 the District Court again dismissed the applicants' action. In October 1991 the Regional Court quashed this decision and remitted the case for a second time.
14.  In the resumed proceedings, on 2 February 1993 the District Court held a hearing and appointed a technical expert. On 9 May 1995 an inspection of the premises was carried out. On 9 November 1995 a further expert was appointed but replaced, on the applicants' complaint, on 22 January 1996. In April 1996 the expert sent the documentation back to the District Court indicating that the applicants had prevented him from inspecting the premises. On 14 November 1996 the District Court appointed the Forensic Technical Expert Institute to give an opinion in the case, which it did on 26 March 1997. A final report was submitted on 23 September 1997.
15.  On 13 November 1997 the District Court accepted the applicants' claims, finding that the defendant's installation of the sewer had constituted a trespass and ordered her to remove it. It dismissed the defendant's counter-action brought with a view to establishing rights of servitude.
16.  On 15 May 1998 the Regional Court dismissed the defendant's appeal.
17.  On 17 June 1998 the defendant brought a petition for review before the Supreme Court. On 28 September 1998 the applicants submitted their counter-arguments.
18.  On 19 November 1998 the District Court ordered the competent agent to proceed with the enforcement of its decision. This took place on 4 December 1998.
19.  On 10 March 1999 the Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of the defendant's counter-action on the servitude claim, but quashed the remainder of the first and second instance judgments and dismissed the applicants' action. It held that the extent to which the defendant had exceeded the rights granted to her in 1987 did not warrant the removal of the sewer. In so far as the applicants had disputed her right to install the sewer across their land, the Supreme Court qualified their claims as res judicata. The judgment was served on the applicants on 4 June 1999.
8.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in La Spezia. He is the owner of an apartment in La Spezia, which he had let to B.L.
9.  In a registered letter of 21 February 1992, the applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 August 1992 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.
10.  On 31 August 1992, he served a notice to quit on the tenant, but he refused to leave.
11.  In a writ served on the tenant on 22 February 1993, the applicant informed the tenant of his intention to terminate the lease and summoned him to appear before the La Spezia Magistrate.
12.  By a decision of 4 March 1993, which was made enforceable on the same day, the La Spezia Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1993.
13.  On 14 January 1994, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
14.  On 16 February 1994, he served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 8 March 1994.
15.  On 30 May 1994, the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for his mother.
16.  Between 8 March 1994 and 14 May 1998, the bailiff made three attempts to recover possession.
17.  Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
18.  On 27 September 1996, the applicant asked the La Spezia Magistrate for police assistance in enforcing the order for possession. The La Spezia Magistrate rejected the request.
19.  On 13 February 1998 and on 4 May 1998, the applicant served two notices to quit on the tenant, informing him that the order for possession would be enforced with the assistance of the police.
20.  On 14 May 1998, the applicant recovered possession of the apartment.
8.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Naples.
9.  The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Naples, which she had let to L.P.
10.  In a writ of 31 January 1984 , the applicant informed the tenant that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.
11.  On 31 April 1984, she served a notice to quit on the tenant, but he refused to leave.
12.  In a writ served on the tenant on 30 May 1984, the applicant reiterated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Naples Magistrate.
13.  By a decision of 5 March 1986, which was made enforceable on 7 March 1990, the Naples Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 5 September 1987.
14.  On 4 May 1990, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 27 July 1990.
15.  On 6 May 1991, the applicant made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for herself.
16.  Between 27 July 1990 and 6 December 1994, the bailiff made thirteen attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
17.  On 4 January 1995, the Naples Magistrate served notice to quit on the tenant, informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 21 March 1995.
18.  On 28 January 1997, the applicant recovered possession of the apartment.
8.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Rome.
9.  A.G.D. was the owner of an apartment in Rome, which she had let to V.P.
10.  A.G.D. informed the tenant that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1983, and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.
11.  By a decision of 21 October 1986, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 April 1987.
12.  On 13 November 1986, the applicant became the owner of the apartment and pursued the enforcement proceedings.
13.  On 8 May 1987, she served a notice to quit on the tenant, but he refused to leave.
14.  On 20 May 1987 she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 7 July 1987.
15.  On 3 April 1989, the applicant made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for herself.
16.  Between 7 July 1987 and 1 December 1999, the bailiff made forty-nine attempts to recover possession.
17.  Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
18.  After reaching an agreement with the tenant, on 18 December 1999 the applicant recovered possession of her apartment.
8.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Matera.
9.  The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Milan, which she had let to D.D'A.M.
10.  In a registered letter of 3 October 1984, the applicant informed the tenant that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1985 and asked her to vacate the premises by that date.
11.  On 23 October 1985, she served a notice to quit on the tenant and summoned her to appear before the Milan Magistrate.
12.  By a decision of 16 October 1986, which was made enforceable on 19 November 1986, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 June 1988.
13.  On 30 June 1988 and on 2 May 1989, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.
14.  On 1 June 1989, she served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 27 June 1989.
15.  Between 27 June 1989 and 25 November 1997, the bailiff made thirty-one attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, under the statutory provisions providing for the suspension for the staggering of evictions, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
16.  On 27 December 1997, the applicant recovered possession of the apartment, because the tenant spontaneously vacated the premises.
8.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Milan.
9.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
10.  Stelios company was the owner of an apartment in Milan which it had let to E.T.
11.  In a registered letter sent in December 1990, Stelios informed the tenant that it intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 29 September 1992 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.
12.  In a writ served on the tenant on 19 March 1991, Stelios reiterated its intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Milan Magistrate.
13.  By a decision of 4 April 1991, which was made enforceable on 30 June 1993, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by the same date.
14.  On 15 December 1992, the applicant became the owner of the apartment and pursued the enforcement proceedings.
15.  On 15 November 1993, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
16.  On 25 January 1994, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 11 February 1994.
17.  In a registered letter of 13 March 1995, the applicant proposed negotiations to the tenant in order to settle their dispute, but they failed.
18.  Between 11 February 1994 and 15 March 1999, the bailiff made seventeen attempts to recover possession.
19.  Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, under the statutory provisions providing for the suspension or the staggering of evictions, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
20.  On 14 December 1999, the enforcement of the order for possession was suspended pursuant Section 6 of Law no. 431/98 and set for 12 May 2000.
21.  On 9 May 2000 and 13 June 2000, the bailiff made two attempts to recover possession.
22.  Later in June 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the apartment.
8.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Milan.
9.  In a letter of 28 June 1982, the former owner of the flat informed R.S. (the tenant) that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1983 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.
10.  In a writ served on the tenant on 16 April 1984, the owner reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Milan Magistrate.
11.  By a decision of 20 November 1984, which was made enforceable on the same date, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 10 September 1985.
12.  The tenant asked the Milan Magistrate to postpone the enforcement proceedings. The Milan Magistrate set a fresh date for the end of August 1986.
13.  On 29 January 1985, the applicant became the owner of the flat and pursued the enforcement proceedings.
14.  On 4 July 1986, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
15.  On 19 August 1986, he served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 24 September 1986.
16.  Between 24 September 1986 and 22 October 1987, the bailiff made twelve attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
17.  On 24 March 1987, the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for himself.
18.  The tenant asked the Milan Magistrate to set again a fresh date for the enforcement for 28 July 1988.
19.  On 14 December 1988 and on 14 April 1989, the applicant served two notices on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
20.  On 4 May 1989, he served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 26 May 1989.
21.  Between 26 May 1989 and 13 January 2000, the bailiff made forty-four attempts to recover possession.
22.  On 13 January 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.
4.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Cífer.
5.  On 2 January 1995 the applicant filed an action for rehabilitation with the Bratislava City Court.
6.  On 7 February 1995 the City Court transferred the case to the Bratislava I District Court for reasons of jurisdiction. On 1 July 1998 the case was assigned to another judge who started proceeding with it on 16 June 1999.
7.  On 2 September 1999 the Constitutional Court found that the Bratislava I District Court had violated the applicant's constitutional right to have his case examined without undue delays. In its finding the Constitutional Court noted, in particular, that the District Court had failed to proceed with the case between 31 July 1995 and  3 April 1997 and also between 1 July 1998 and 16 June 1999.
8.  On 27 November 2001 the Bratislava I District Court dismissed the action. The applicant appealed on 23 June 2002. The proceedings are pending.
5.  The applicant was born in 1922 and lives in Dřevnovice (Czech Republic).
6.  On 9 April 1991 the applicant claimed compensation from a person who had damaged his car.
7.  On 3 February 1994 the Košice - okolie District Court allowed the applicant's claims in part. On 6 December 1995 the Banská Bystrica Regional Court quashed the first instance judgment.
8.  On 17 November 1999 the Košice - okolie District Court noted that the applicant had withdrawn a part of his action and discontinued the proceedings in respect of the relevant claims. It further dismissed the remainder of the applicant's action.
9.  On 3 January 2000 the applicant appealed against the decision to dismiss his action. He also challenged the District Court's decision on the expert's fees.
10.  On 23 May 2000 the Banská Bystrica Regional Court upheld the District Court's decision to dismiss the applicant's action.
11.  On 27 June 2000 the applicant filed an appeal on points of law. The Supreme Court rejected it, on 28 September 2000, as being inadmissible.
6.  The applicant is the owner of an appartment in Turin, which he had let to E.M.
7.  In a writ served on the tenant on 25 February 1993 the applicant informed the tenant of his intention to terminate the lease on 31 December 1993 and summoned her to appear before the Turuin Magistrate.
8.  The tenant refused to leave the premises.
9.  In a writ served on the tenant on 7 May 1993, the appliquant reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Turin Magistrate.
10.  By a decision of 19 May 1993, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Turin Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1994.
11.  On 27 January 1995 the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.
12.  On 8 March 1995 the applicant informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 28 March 1995.
13.  Between 28 March 1995 and 13 September 2000, the bailiff made eight attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful as, under the statutory provisions providing for the suspension, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
14.  Pursuant to Law no. 431/98, the enforcement proceedings were suspended until 13 September 2000.
15.  On 17 January 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the apartment.
6.  The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Rome, which he had let to M.D.M.
7.  In a registered letter of 8 February 1991, the applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1991 and asked her to vacate the premises by that date.
8.  The tenant told the applicant that she would not leave the premises.
9.  In a writ served on the tenant on 15 January 1993, the applicant reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate.
10.  By a decision of 29 April 1993, which was made enforceable on 12 May 1993, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 29 April 1994.
11.  On 18 May 1994, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.
12.  On 11 July 1994, he served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 29 July 1994.
13.  Between 29 July 1994 and 14 November 2000, the bailiff made twenty-five attempts to recover possession.
14.  Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
15.  On 14 February 2001, the tenant spontaneously vacated the premises and the applicant recovered possession of the apartment.
7.  The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Livorno, which she had let to P.B.C.
8.  In a registered letter of 13 April 1987, the applicant informed the tenant that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1987 and asked her to vacate the premises by that date.
9.  In a writ served on the tenant on 22 April 1989, the applicant reiterated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Livorno Magistrate.
10.  By a decision of 15 May 1989, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Livorno Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 November 1989.
11.  On 20 January 1990, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.
12.  On 31 March 1990, she served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 18 April 1990.
13.  Between 18 April 1990 and 18 November 1998, the bailiff made fourteen attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, under the statutory provisions providing for the suspension, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
14.  On an unspecified date of May 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the apartment because the tenant vacated the premises spontaneously.